On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't know about BFR at the time and I always tend to choose simplicity > in any case. > > The theoretical bounds for streaming k-means are also persuasive. The other > strong-ish candidate is k-means++, but it doesn't have the required sketch > architecture in the form that they have analyzed. > > BFR is a reasonable candidate for follow-on work, but we should drive to > conclusion with the current algorithm first.
We should definitely focus on this algorithm for now. I was just surprised to find another one I hadn't known about. :) > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Dan Filimon <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> My question is... why did we pick streaming k-means in particular as >> opposed to this algorithm. BFR seems like a decent candidate for the >> mapper clustering and while it looks more complex (algorithmically) I >> wonder how the clustering quality compares to streaming k-means? >> >> What are your thoughts on this? > >
